KOLKATA: In a major leap for India's nuclear research, scientists here have reached the advanced stage of constructing a superconducting cyclotron that could break the monopoly of the West in the field.

To be operational in two years, this powerful cyclotron being developed at the Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre (VECC) here, namely K500, would be the seventh of its kind in the world.

There are three such cyclotrons in the US, one in Canada, one in Italy and one in the Netherlands.

"K500 would be indigenous and three times more powerful than the existing cyclotron here operational since 1980.

"It will be used by our scientists for carrying out highly advanced research experiments in nuclear science," the centre's director Bikash Sinha said.

"The majority of components were fabricated in the country and some of them, including the superconducting coil, at the VECC itself."

What energy range? How large a magnetic field? Beam intensity? Not a syncrotron?

No idea and it really doesn't matter; the Indians are starting something they have every chance of turning into an open-ended process, so energy range etc. will eventually be whatever they want them to be.

Colliders help scientists study particle physics, which has been essential in breaking barriers in theoretical research in atomic and quantum physics. The argument goes that if we could build a bigger accelerator, which is a huge (miles in circumference or length) gun for firing particles and studying how they behave when they collide, we could find answers to questions as essential as "Are there smaller elements than those that make up quarks?" And "is there a unified theory that actually makes sense?" And "What happened at the beginning of the universe?" Of course these all have weapons applications!

So who's leading the world in colliders? It looks like America is losing its former leadership, and Europe is taking over. Now we read that India is developing its own equipment.

The Democrats are generally seen as pro-science, who want to shell in big bucks for research. And of coure, superconducting supercollider has little to do with defeating communism at this point so I'd expect the Republicans to vote against it. Still... I'm soo confused...

I think the killing of the SSC was somehow sad but justified. The management of the project went completely wrong, and if I remember well, it had already spend 4 times the initial planned budget when it was 1/4 through the project. Even though I'm a particle physicist, and even though I think that the SSC was a great idea which was sad to close down, I can fully understand that when a project is approved, and it is slowly turning out that it will cost about 20 times more than initially proposed, you get the door on your nose.

The only plan on the table for the US to get back into the high energy accelerator business is the International Linear Collider (ILC), but the question of how such a machine would be financed, and whether it would even be constructed in the US at all, remains up in the air. In a very real sense, the future of experimental high energy physics in the US after 2010 is a very large question mark.

He's reacting to this article which I found summarized:

Monday, 7 February, was a grim day for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab). "You wake up, you go to a presentation, and you find out you're dead," says Fermilab physicist Joel Butler. Butler is co-spokesperson of an experiment known as BTeV--a multimillion-dollar project that would allow scientists to study the properties of the bottom quark. But that Monday, when the new Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman took to the podium to announce the department's budget request for 2006, BTeV scientists were horrified to discover that their project had been canceled. -- High-Energy Physics: Exit America?

Leadership in science requires commitment and determination. We had it in the mid-20th century. It looks like we're losing it to me, and I don't see Republicans stepping up to the challenge of reversing the trend.

So far, Republican leadership in physics and space exploration has been weak. I was optimistic about it after President Bush's early speeches after taking office, but where are the results?

To confuse "science" with the feral gummint's squandering of the confiscated wealth of America's [Of the world's, that is] most creative, innovative, industrious and productive Men, is but to measure how far we have travelled down fasciSSocialism's dead-end track!

And that don't take no [Feral and/or any other gummint doled] "scientist" to figger!

And as for the bigotted remarks in one of your posts about the "Christian Right" and Charley Darwin and his theories, it don't take no great intellect, neither, to note that, in all of its recorded history, Mankind has never seen such scientific, productive, industrious, innovative, creativity, musical and every other form of artistic expression -- and every other and/or every other kind of progress -- than it witnessed when this Christian Nation was unequivocal about its Christianity.

And "scientists" either done book larned the kids down the village school or worked for private employers, who either witnessed their progress and measured their usefulness -- or sacked them!

11
posted on 05/07/2005 1:24:09 PM PDT
by Brian Allen
(I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)

I'm not convinced that the issue with evolution is as critical as the things we can do directly with science like space exploration, enticing students into engineering, and research like this. I realize the "scientific method" is an important concern for you, but biology and genetics research "in the present" is just as interesting as the study of origins, if not more. I'm just trying to point out that not so much is lost just because some fundamentalist Christians want to undermine an objective scientific approach to the origin of the species.

The people in the Physics Forum list have it backwards. A "Yea" vote was against the Bumpers amendment to kill the SSC, and the Republicans (led by Phil Gramm, the SSC's biggest cheerleader) were overwhelmingly for it. The few Repubs who did vote against Nay it were RINOs like Jeffords. The Dems who voted yea-Feinstein, Leiberman, Bennett Johnston-are well known for their strong support of pro-science policy, regardless of who sponsors it. Such supposedly "pro-science" Dems as Kerry, Kennedy and Wellstone voted against tabling the Bumpers amendment for no good reason other than blind partisanship, although Mark Warner probably voted Nay so that the Jefferson lab, which was his own baby, would get more funding.

16
posted on 05/07/2005 2:08:39 PM PDT
by RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is not conservative!)

What do you expect from a party which doesn't believe in evolution and thinks the second coming will be tomorrow?

That's unfair. Evolution isn't something that one needs to "believe." (Nothing in science should require belief in anything.) It's a very minor issue, in fact, as to whether or not evolution applies to our development. One can study much about biology and never even worry about that question. Physics, chemistry, and astronomy -- the issues related to this thread -- do not require faith in evolution or faith in God to study.

The Republican disinterest in this project has nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with budget strategies and pork. It has a lot to do with junk spending the Democrats are sapping our government with. And it has a lot to do with how the State Department spends our tax dollars overseas. There just isn't enough left over for real challenging projects like these that could propel America forward into the lead again in physics.

<< I don't see anything in your comments that could help us compete with India and Europe on ground breaking physics research. >>

Who says we must?

Americans -- of every etnicity -- already vanguard the world's scientists, chemists, pharmacists, physicists, engineers, creators, innovators, producers and industrialists -- have for two hundred years -- and have no real challengers in sight.

And the only "challenge" comes from self-deluding dead and decadent Euro-peons, whose Neo-Soviet is already coming apart around their ears and whose soon-to-be-ghastly collapse will occupy them for at least the next fifteen years? Or is, you say, being mounted by various of the planet's third-world Hell-hole states -- most of which haven't yet figgured out how to form a government acceptable to their populations and/or still build the 1948 Morris Oxfords they call "automobiles?" These will "challenge" our superiority in every field of Human endeavor? Those states that are -- if they're lucky -- struggling to catch up to being within thirty years behind us -- and/or to get hundreds of millions of their subjects out of the middle ages-like poverty and serfdom and squalor in which they subsist?

Dream on.

21
posted on 05/07/2005 2:52:56 PM PDT
by Brian Allen
(I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)

No, a Yea vote was to table the Bumpers amendment, meaning to kill it. The vast majority of Republicans voted to table, with the Dems being split. Although the Senate voted to table the amendment, Congress, also controlled by Dems, did not.

The word "table" is a real slippery one, as most people seems to think it means a vote to keep an amendment than to kill it.

22
posted on 05/07/2005 3:00:24 PM PDT
by RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is not conservative!)

Who says we must [use the federal government to encourage ground breaking physics research]?

I'd like to remind you about Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I'd like to remind you about the Norton Bomb sight, and the strategic bomber. I'd also like to point out that game theory, research produced by von Neumann, actually helped us win WWII. In fact, without it, we might have lost. When the Japanese were trying to understand what had happened to them at the end of WWII, one of the generals complained that they had relied too much on spirit and not enough on science and engineering.

I don't mind that you disagree with me, but I'm just pointing out that there are dangers in trying to do without massive infrastructure spending on development in space and physical sciences research. That spending put us ahead for WWII, and it put us ahead during the Cold War. We'll need to stay ahead of the Chinese and Europeans if we want to maintain strategic superiority.

If you've got other ideas about how to encourage (or simply allow) private industry to enter into these fields and stay ahead of the EU and China, then let's hear it.

Americans -- of every etnicity -- already vanguard the world's scientists, chemists, pharmacists, physicists, engineers, creators, innovators, producers and industrialists -- have for two hundred years -- and have no real challengers in sight.

I don't know what "etnicity" has to do with it, but I think it's dangerous to assume that a lead we had in the 1950s translates into a permanent lead. That lead was obtained through a massive investment of federal research and development spending that launched private industry and government labs to very high levels of achievement.

We won the cold war partly with capitalism-fueld federal spending on space and weapons research.

From H.R.2445: 17. S.AMDT.983 to H.R.2445 To reduce funds for General Science and Research Activities and terminate the Superconducting Super Collider program for the purposes of reducing the deficit in the Federal Budget. Sponsor: Sen Bumpers, Dale [AR] (introduced 9/29/1993) Cosponsors (16) Latest Major Action: 9/30/1993 Motion to table SP 983 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57-42. Record Vote No: 296.

Sorry, I was evidently still confused about the meaning of "table." But what about vote 269, which passes Rep Slattery's H.AMDT.147?

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:Amendment terminates funding for the Superconducting Super Collider Project by deleting $400 million appropriated for the project.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:An amendment to terminate the Superconducting Super Collider Project by eliminating $400 million of the funding for the project, retaining $220 million to pay for costs relating to termination of the project.

Science did not produce freedoms and human rights as mentioned in our constitutions. It was produced from the moral and religious convictions of a majority who were in consensus regarding Judeo Christian beliefs and values. Our "creator" has "endowed" us with rights, not the sciences!

Indeed, without a prevailing sense of Judeo Christian morality in Western Societies from the middle ages to the early 20th century, the modern sciences that have given us so much would never developed.

Science and scientific Lysenko type politicians(who try to use science to destroy Christian influence in America) need to remember that modern science was rooted early in western Judeo Christian consensus and science practitioners run the risk of loss of inspiration....like a river cut off from its source...or a nose cut off to spite one's face!

Science has never created a Bill of Rights; only an A priori thirst for liberty in the American soul has done so...a thirst that can never be measured, objectively quantified and studied with rigid methodology. The American system is based on true Tautology, a nonfalsifiable arguement in which it is believed that Almighty God rules the affairs of men...raising some nations up while pulling others down!

I don't think Christianity and faith have anything to do with India's bid for superiority in physics and America's tepid, bipartisan response. There is a fundamentalist Hindu belief that India has been blessed with the potential for scientific and mathematical superiority. Faith can move mountains when it helps human beings to achieve their true potential. Besides, I see false dichotomies in both the argument that Christians can't be good scientists (or support exceptionally high quality science) and biological theories of species origin having any relation to God's existence or not. The Victorians started losing their faith when they started buying into the theory of evolution. That may say more about the depth of their faith than anything else.

That's true, a majority of Congressional Republicans voted to kill the SSC...but so did the overwhelming majority of Dems as well. It's interesting to note that Henry Waxman voted to kill the SSC, as did Dennis Hastert...whose district encompasses Fermilab.

32
posted on 05/07/2005 5:42:35 PM PDT
by RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is not conservative!)

Thanks, and for what it's worth, I am on your side in this thread's main argument :).

I'm surprised no one has yet noted one of the big reasons for the Indian sci-tech boom: a move away from the command economy and a bigger emphasis on free-market policies over the past twenty years. This was also the main reason that Ireland became the "Celtic Tiger" of European R & D.

38
posted on 05/07/2005 8:13:15 PM PDT
by RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is not conservative!)

With big-ticket items like defense research, space exploration, particle accelerators and atomic physics, oceanic exploration/development, and so forth, I think there is a legitimate role for "big" government to play. It can leverage the nation's need for strategic progress on a large scale with funding and focus. The spinoffs should be encouraged to flourish however. Business can thrive on top of "big" (little 'b') government.

I meant to suggest as well that an accelerated "privatization with patriotism as the basic set of rules" program could accompany most of these "infrastructure" pushes. New companies should be encouraged to do their own research and sell their own products to (American and Coalition) customers.

<< Al Gore did, I think he came out at around 115 or something, pretty much in the model of average. [Between 100 and 115] >>

If Al-Fredo Gore-leone's IQ is even 85, I will donate my next twelve month's income to LA's Midnight Mission!

Once but a mobbed-up Florida Florida 'court's' machination or two and a re-hung chad or ten from being the world's most dangerous dullard, triple college drop-out, Gore, is surely really close to being retarded!

43
posted on 05/08/2005 1:08:37 AM PDT
by Brian Allen
(I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)

Once but a mobbed-up Florida Florida 'court's' machination or two and a re-hung chad or ten from being the world's most dangerous dullard, triple college drop-out, Gore, is surely really close to being retarded!

I took an IQ test and did well.

Please do not tell me you give them credibility.

And for the record, Gore lost every single case, including before democratic judges, except for the Florida Supreme Court (and the last one was a split decision by one vote, with no republicans).

Gores test came at Harvard.

He claims his score and Harvard has confirmed it, either way, I think he is proof that his score prooves the point, these tests are stupid.

Before 2000, check his opinions on IQ scores, He was right then, they are useless and stupid.

Gore is an idiot.

The people who supported him, believed him, which is him calling them idiots.

Gore is just an arrogant elitist who thinks that he's smarter then the average person and is angry that not enough people voted for him, so in his mind, they are idiots.

Please do not give credence to these stupid tests, they do nothing, and no one has ever cared anyway.

yes, a free market does help the funding of developments in science and research. ethnicity has little to do with is. if a society places emphasis on science and mathematics and is backed up by state/private funding it can come up with path breaking research.

the old soviet union was an example of state funding. in our country it was a healthy mix of state/private funding that contributed to research. increasingly china and india will give us a run for our money.

But relax -- they're only measurements -- and you'd not fell any less about miles and yards just because the road to my house is longer than the road to yours.

If IQ tests were as accurate as measurements to your house, I'd be a proponent.

I'll admit, maybe I'm sometimes a I'm demanding, but I want a better and more accurate test.

I think the SAT's do a better job then the IQ test, and that's still leaves alot of room to be desired.

If the test was better, and more accurate, I'd be a supporter.

I do think we can measure intelligence the way we measure everything else, we just haven't succeeded in doing so, and we have accepted imperfection with the IQ test which is halting progress in getting a better method of measurement.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.